A member of the Canadian military is suing both the federal government and an American-based gun manufacturer after being wounded by an unexpected, accidental discharge of his new handgun.
The C-22 pistol — the Canadian variant of the P320 — is at the centre of multiple injury claims and lawsuits in the United States.
Master Warrant Officer Jamie Deslaurier, a long-serving military police officer and weapons instructor, was wounded in the foot while being trained on the handgun, which went off while in his holster.
“I was extremely angry with the fact that we procured this weapon and it’s been employed in the Canadian Forces,” Deslaurier said in an interview with CBC News.
The incident happened on April 16, 2024, at a military training range in Borden, Ont.
It is the second case of a Canadian soldier being shot by a gun that critics claim can go off without a trigger pull.
The first incident, in November 2020, involved a member of the country’s elite counterterrorism unit, JTF 2, which was at the time examining whether the pistol was suitable for their operations. The Department of National Defence paused the rollout of the pistol while an investigation took place.
Despite that shooting and numerous lawsuits in the U.S., the federal government decided in 2022 to proceed with a large-scale purchase of the P320 as a replacement for the military’s Second World War-era Browning 9-mm pistols.
Deslaurier’s lawsuit is also significant because the Department of National Defence claimed last year that there had been no misfire incidents or injuries during the rollout of the new guns.
In his statement of claim, Deslarier is seeking $4 million in damages from the Newington, N.H., company and $3 million from the federal government, claiming the P320 is defective.
The court filing alleges that the federal government proceeded with the large-scale acquisition of the handgun despite being aware of the safety concerns in the U.S. and knowing the pistol could apparently go off without a trigger pull.
Deslaurier, in an interview, said his career was cut short by the injury. He’d planned to stay in the military a few more years to reach the 25-year mark to get his full pension, and then transition to a civilian law enforcement job. He said that’s no longer possible.
He said he was only vaguely aware of the safety concerns raised in numerous U.S. reports and by CBC News investigations in 2021, 2022 and 2025 until he was at home recovering.
Many in his unit were simply happy to get new guns, Deslaurier said, but he now wonders how the federal government could have proceeded with the full purchase program especially when several U.S. law enforcement agencies had either suspended or discontinued use of the pistol.
“At this point in time, I was just looking for accountability, some transparency and to ensure the safety of the other members,” Deslaurier said.
The Department of National Defence declined to comment on the case because the matter was before the courts.
Deslaurier said he was also angry because he and his lawyer had to fight under access to information legislation for a copy of the internal investigation into his injury.
The weapons technicians who wrote the report said their best estimate was that it was “user error,” said Lane Foster, Deslaurier’s lawyer.
But there was a big caveat in the findings.
“They were unable to conclusively determine what happened because the scene was not properly preserved and the gun was not produced to them for a lengthy period of time afterwards,” said Foster, who added the findings left him incredulous given his client’s record and experience.
“Jamie was known to be the best marksman of the group and was the most skilled with weapons handling,” Foster said.
“Where this has happened, it’s not with people who are just learning to use guns. It’s with people who are experienced law enforcement officers or military officers and it continues to occur with this specific gun.”
The court documents accuse the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service of removing evidence from the scene of the incident and generally mishandling the matter to the point where weapons techs couldn’t do their job.
Foster said his client wants to see the pistol either recalled or fixed.
“We think that SIG Sauer needs to take some responsibility for what’s happening instead of continuing to point towards user error,” Foster said.
“Whether that is a recall or a change with a gun, a modification, something needs to happen there.”
CBC News asked the company for comment. It did not respond.
Since CBC News first started reporting concerns about the P320, both SIG Sauer and its Canadian distributor, MD Charlton, headquartered in Victoria, declined to answer questions.
Instead, they took to online pro-gun industry forums to offer a rebuttal. In 2021, MD Charlton posted to the online commercial forum Canadian Gun Nutz, describing the CBC News piece on the special forces soldier as “inaccurate.”
SIG Sauer went further, saying the story was instigated by competitors to smear its reputation ahead of a Canadian government tender to replace all of the military’s handguns.
The remark was patently false and the company ultimately won the federal competition.
SIG Sauer has repeatedly said in U.S. courts that the “P320 cannot, under any circumstances, discharge without the trigger first being moved to the rear.”
Jeff Bagnell, a lawyer in Westport, Conn., who has litigated several cases, mostly by commercial gun owners, related to P320 accidental discharges, said the accidents and injuries don’t appear to have dented SIG Sauer sales.
He said there have been at least 500 reported unintended firing incidents involving the pistol in the United States.
“I think that number will only go up. There’s four million of these guns out there,” Bagnell said, who has been pressing the company for years to issue a recall — something that the company has steadfastly refused to do.
“To recall that kind of marquee product would be a public relations disaster for a company like SIG. So it just continues to go down the road of people getting shot and it’s going into the legal system — both federal and state.”
